Dismissed

K.Sai Sasi Bhushan, v. K.Sowmya

Telangana HC9 Dec 2016WA/1343/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged an order granting a counter affidavit opportunity. The bench set aside the impugned writ petition order and restored the petition for fresh filing, granting the appellant two weeks to file his counter affidavit due to a dispute over service addresses.

What did the court decide?

The order under appeal was set aside. W.P.No.4370 of 2015 was restored to the file for fresh filing. Appellant granted two weeks to file counter affidavit.

K.Sai Sasi Bhushan, Vs K.Sowmya — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶4

Writ Appeal No.1343 of 2016

¶5

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶6

This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4370 of 2015 dated 16.08.2016. The 1^st respondent herein is the wife of the appellant, and is the petitioner in W.P.No.4370 of 2015, wherein she sought a direction to declare the inaction of the Regional Passport Officer, Secunderabad in failing to impound the passport of the appellant who, according to her, had deliberately violated the orders of the Hon’ble XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, L.B.Nagar in D.V.C.No.9 of 2012 as arbitrary and illegal.

¶7

Sri M.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the averments in W.P.M.P.No.24012 of 2016 in W.P.No.4370 of 2015, filed by the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner, show that the appellant is residing in Dubai whereas, admittedly, the notice was sent to another address in Sharjah; and Sharjah and Dubai are different Emirates. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, filed in support of W.P.M.P.No.24012 of 2016 in W.P.No.4370 of 2015, the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner has stated that the appellant was residing in Dubai, and was causing hindrance in the progress of the case.

¶8

The notice, in the writ petition, was sent to an address at Sharjah, and not in Dubai. The order in the Writ Petition came to be passed recording the submission of the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner that the notice was sent to a P.O. Box, and must be deemed as service of notice. The appellant claims to be residing in Dubai at the address given in the cause title in the Writ Appeal, and is now represented by Sri V.Vijay Rama Raj, learned counsel, before this Court.

¶9

In the light of the dispute regarding the correct address, to which the notice should have been sent, we consider it appropriate to give the appellant an opportunity of being heard in the Writ Petition. At the same time, we deem it unnecessary to direct notice in the writ petition to be issued afresh to the appellant herein. Sri M.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would fairly state that no further notice is required to be sent to the appellant, as he is now represented by Sri V.Vijaya Rama Raj, learned counsel; and notices, if any, may be served on the learned counsel. Learned Senior Counsel would request that two weeks time be granted to the appellant (2^nd respondent in the writ petition) to file his counter affidavit.

¶10

We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set aside the order under appeal, and restore W.P.No.4370 of 2015 to file. It is open to the appellant (2^nd respondent in the writ petition) to file his counter affidavit within two weeks from today, and for the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner, after two weeks, to request the learned Single Judge to take up hearing of the Writ Petition.

¶11

The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

¶13

_____________________________ (A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J)

¶14

09^th December, 2016 Note: Issue C.C. by 14.12.2016. JSU

¶15

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶16

AND

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶18

Writ Appeal No.1343 of 2016

¶19

Date: 09.12.2016

¶20

JSU

K.Sai Sasi Bhushan, v. K.Sowmya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sai Sasi Bhushan, v. K.Sowmya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Exensys Software Solutions Ltd., 8-2-684/1/18 Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Huamn Rights Commission

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M/s. Smsil-Uanmax-(Jv)

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs M/s EC1 Engineering and Constructions

M/s. Padmaja Graphics, G.V.R. complex, M.G. Road, Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

Gem Granites, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its

Rasala Lingaiah Vs Ponnam Sreenu , Srinivas